"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
--William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1650

Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."

Ralph, give me a break. You aren't actually claiming that the Bible tells all Christians to be commies. (There is a really important nature/grace, or "don't immanatize the eschaton" point to be made here.) That would be a ridiculous interpretation of that passage. Now, why put that quote there unless you want people to think that? And why do you want people to think given that you know it is wrong?

Trollish, if I may say so myself.

All I did was quote sacred scripture. I didn't interpret it.

Of course I don't believe that "the Bible tells Christians to be commies." I put the quote there to balance Bradford's remark that a community of property was contrary to the wisdom of God. It is not necessarily so (or the Apostles were acting contrary to divine wisdom).

I hope that Dan, Mrs. Flynn, Barry, and the Flynn Files readers have had a great Thanksgiving weekend.

Despite the results from earlier this month, we all have a great deal to be thankful for, this holiday season.

Sigh. I had hoped to start a conversation about human nature and forms of community, but all I got was one uncharitable response followed by silence.

Bradford argues that the failure of communism at Plymouth Plantation refutes the conceit of Plato that holding property in common promotes happiness and flourishing.

But the "Pilgrims and Strangers" were not like the soldiers of the Republic. Most could not have had the proper natures, and all had not received the proper education (as far as the Republic is concerned). No wonder their attempt to hold everything in common failed.

To this Bradford responds, "Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

Bradford may be right. For while the Christian community in Acts "had all things in common," perhaps their corruption was compensated for by grace (no doubt, this is the nature/grace point Skeptic had in mind). The inevtibale failure of communism, then, is due to man's wounded nature.

Plato, of course, would not admit that man's nature suffers from original sin. And if it is possible to have a well-ordered soul, then communism can "make men happy and flourishing."

Well said in all of it, Ralph.

I share your view on Acts 2--and Plato. Nonetheless, I think that Bradford has a point in there as well.